Consistent liberals are also the most likely faction to drop someone as a friend over politics, although their lead over consistent conservatives is more modest on that point (24 percent to 16 percent).

Update (October 21st, 2014): Edited title (still quoting Pew, different quote) to make clear why liberals are blocking people (not just vaguely “Based on Political Content”, but specifically “because they disagreed with a political post”).

9 Responses to “Pew: ‘Consistent Liberals Most Likely to Block Others’ ‘because they disagreed with a political post’”

I’ve also noticed this tendency on Flickr, the photo-sharing application site, even though it isn’t social media in the way that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. are; people treat it that way.

And progs on their can be very cliquish – and they seem to predominate. If you disagree with them, it’s easy to get blocked by them, or if they don’t go that far, they’ll just stop visiting your photostream. Even if you just express some tradcon sentiments, or pro-freedom sentiments, the most partisan progs will have little to do with you, from there on out.

In my own experience on Facebook, liberals are both the most likely to tell everyone bluntly about their own political opinions, and by far the most likely to take it personally and get ugly in response to hearing about others’ political opinions.

I’ve noticed a trend among liberals–it’s becoming increasingly popular to explictly, openly state that one’s position on a particular issue is a bright-line litmus test for whether one is a decent human being. For example, I’ve seen Facebook friends lay it out: if you oppose gay marriage, you are a bad person. Not “mistaken,” not “misguided,” but a “bad person.” These manifestos are often accompanied by a flat declaration that the issue in question is settled, and no further debate is legitimate.

Whew, glad for the explanation– otherwise I block a lot of people because of “political content.”

It’s not because they disagree, it’s because I get tired of being called a baby killing, anti-science hater who is a liar for linking an objective source, and humorless for pointing out an absolute lie that happens to be in graphic form…..